Calling her a slut wasn't the libel. The libel was calling her a prostitute.

You could get a good lawyer to make the case that birth control in her case is for contraceptive usage due to promiscuous sex. If she was taking it for medical reasons it would be an open and shut case. Further more she could be argued to be a public figure and activist. Slander is making false accusations

http://www.lasisblog.com/2012/03/04/no-slander-in-rush-limbaugh%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9Cslut%E2%80%9D-comment/

So why else would you need birth control

I think that the most damaging thing she can do is to take the high road. Here's why:

1. Rush is extremely wealthy. By that I mean he earns 100 million a year. The financial cost of a defamation suit will never impact him.

2. The biggest damage to him is therefore to either get him dumped or to reduce his value in the marketplace.

3. The best way she can do that is to make this strictly about principles. If anyone senses that she's in this to make a buck, it diminishes her position in the mind of the public.

4. Honestly, the only actual damage to her reputation is going to be among the wingnuts who like to use terms like "Feminazi" and who really do think birth control makes a woman a slut. I doubt that people like this will have any impact on her future employment, her social circles, her Church or anywhere else.

takoma wrote:Even assuming her to be a public figure, Rush could be convicted of defamation if he made his comment knowing it to be false or with reckless disregard to its truth. I think it's pretty obvious that he had no regard for whether she is actually a slut, and knows damn well she is very unlikely to be an actual prostitute.

On the other hand, I think Maher's reference to Palin as a "cunt" is clearly a pure epithet, with no substantive content. It expresses his opinion of her and no more. I doubt anyone would consider that actionable against so obviously public a figure as Palin. It's obnoxious and deserves to be disavowed by the left as well as the right, but that's a separate issue.

Correct. We're not talking about Bill Maher, anyway. We're talking about Rush Limbaugh and his actionable libel.

Anonymous wrote:nice try, she made herself a public figure. monica lewinsky can sue Clinton for labeling her "a stalker". paula jones can sue james carville for calling her 'Trailer trash". Januita brodeick can sue Clinton for rape and biting her lip. sarah palin can sue bill maher for calling her a C**t. hillary can sue Bill for appraising her as a pig..... it goes on and on.

I think we can demonstrate actual malice and reckless disregard in Rush's case. Not hard.

I just expect that she donates her tort to a women's health cause.

Even assuming her to be a public figure, Rush could be convicted of defamation if he made his comment knowing it to be false or with reckless disregard to its truth. I think it's pretty obvious that he had no regard for whether she is actually a slut, and knows damn well she is very unlikely to be an actual prostitute.

On the other hand, I think Maher's reference to Palin as a "cunt" is clearly a pure epithet, with no substantive content. It expresses his opinion of her and no more. I doubt anyone would consider that actionable against so obviously public a figure as Palin. It's obnoxious and deserves to be disavowed by the left as well as the right, but that's a separate issue.

the question of whether she is a public figure is debatable, she might be since she was the leader of an advocacy group, but maybe not.

Either way, I think she has a case. It would be stronger without the public figure defense, but even with it, I think she could prevail.

and anyone can sue who the hell they want for whatever they want. it doesnt mean something is going to come out of it .

so sure all those people you listed as your "evidence" can due but they didnt.

she didnt make herself a public figure. she made public testimony as a private citizen.

she became a public figure after being called a slut and a whore. she would just be some lady making crazy statements at a hearing rush didnt go the extra mile on her.

and im not just saying that cause there were conservatives discussing the substance of her argument before rush and if fluke walked up to me and told me who she was i wouldnt have known.

nice try, she made herself a public figure. monica lewinsky can sue Clinton for labeling her "a stalker". paula jones can sue james carville for calling her 'Trailer trash". Januita brodeick can sue Clinton for rape and biting her lip. sarah palin can sue bill maher for calling her a C**t. hillary can sue Bill for appraising her as a pig..... it goes on and on.

if she sues it will be settled out of court im sure.

where are the republican trolls with their conspiracies about fluke needing knee pads and the existence of nude photos of her sent to her boyfriend?

I don't normally like law suits at all. But in this case, I kind of hope she sues as well. Especially corporate.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/06/tagblogsfindlawcom2012-injured-idUS286979719420120306

"His statements implied facts about somebody's sex life, that she was promiscuous and trading sex for money," the attorney explained. The company that syndicates Limbaugh's radio show may also be liable for "publishing" the comments, the attorney said."

I hope she sues!